Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People Vs Manlunsing Etal

    Uploaded by

    cristine jagodilla
    10 views1 page
    1) Manuel Villegas was charged with murder along with others and was appointed a public defender, Atty. Pajarito, by the court at the start of trial. However, Villegas indicated he had his own lawyer. 2) The trial proceeded without allowing Villegas to present his own lawyer. Pajarito also did not confer with Villegas and no evidence was presented on his behalf. Villegas was convicted. 3) Villegas' true lawyer, Atty. Pielago, appealed the conviction arguing Villegas' rights were violated. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the conviction, ordering a new trial.

    Original Description:

    People vs Manlunsing Etal

    Original Title

    People vs Manlunsing Etal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Manuel Villegas was charged with murder along with others and was appointed a public defender, Atty. Pajarito, by the court at the start of trial. However, Villegas indicated he had his own lawyer. 2) The trial proceeded without allowing Villegas to present his own lawyer. Pajarito also did not confer with Villegas and no evidence was presented on his behalf. Villegas was convicted. 3) Villegas' true lawyer, Atty. Pielago, appealed the conviction arguing Villegas' rights were violated. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the conviction, ordering a new trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    10 views1 page

    People Vs Manlunsing Etal

    Uploaded by

    cristine jagodilla
    1) Manuel Villegas was charged with murder along with others and was appointed a public defender, Atty. Pajarito, by the court at the start of trial. However, Villegas indicated he had his own lawyer. 2) The trial proceeded without allowing Villegas to present his own lawyer. Pajarito also did not confer with Villegas and no evidence was presented on his behalf. Villegas was convicted. 3) Villegas' true lawyer, Atty. Pielago, appealed the conviction arguing Villegas' rights were violated. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the conviction, ordering a new trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    People of the Philippines vs

    Felipe Malunsing
    63 SCRA 493 Legal Ethics Duty of Counsel to Be Adequately Prepared
    Manuel Villegas together with Malunsing et al were charged for murder. At the opening of the trial, Manuel Villegas
    was appointed a counsel de oficio, Atty. Geronimo Pajarito. Villegas however intimated to Geronimo and the trial
    court that he has his own lawyer. However, the court proceeded without giving Villegas the opportunity to present
    his own lawyer. The court then asked Atty. Pajarito if he wants to confer with his client but Pajarito replied I think I
    know the case. Thereafter, trial began where the prosecution presented evidence against Villegas. No evidence
    was presented in behalf of Villegas and he was not even called to the witness stand to prove his innocence.
    Consequently, Villegas was convicted of the crime charged.
    Now, Atty. Pablito Pielago [presumably Villegas true lawyer and supposed lawyer from the onset?] questioned the
    conviction as he presented the above irregularities. He said that Villegas is an unlettered man and he does not
    know the intricacies of court proceedings hence Pajarito should have been vigilant in representing him in court.
    Pielago now wants the reversal of the conviction.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction should be reversed.
    HELD: Yes, for there is a gross violation of Villegas constitutional rights. The Supreme Court noted that it is not
    enough that a counsel de oficio was appointed, especially so as here, where the accused had indicated that he
    wanted a lawyer of his choice, a decision prompted moreover by the fact that he had lost confidence in the
    member of the bar thus designated. Nor is it to manifest respect for this right if the counsel de oficio thus named,
    instead of conferring with the accused, would just blithely inform the judge that he was already fully prepared for
    his exacting responsibility. It was unintended, of course, but the result could not rightly be distinguished from pure
    travesty. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction but considering the gravity of the offense charged, it ordered
    a new trial.

    You might also like